Free-will and choice confusion

I’m writing this article as a plea for Christians and skeptics alike, but especially theologians and apologists, to use the term ‘free will’ more carefully. I hear mistakes and mis-speaks so often that it has become one of my pet-peeves. I’m also hoping that providing a bit of detail on the distinction will positively impact our theological and apologetics discussion. This distinction does, or should, have an impact on a number of topics such as ‘the problem of evil’ or the Calvin/Arminian debate. I also welcome discussion in the comments on the more technical, philosophical distinctions (which are probably a layer above, though helpful to the purpose of this article).

Will vs Choice

Many times when I hear the term ‘free will’ used, what the speaker or writer really means is choice or free choice. We generally have free choices when we make decisions. Our wills, however, seem hardly free. Christian theology aside, our wills are shaped and influenced by many internal and external factors over our lives. In fact, within a materialistic worldview, anything apart from determinism seems difficult to defend.

On a Christian worldview, the Bible seems quite clear about the fallen state of our hearts. When the Bible speaks of ‘heart’ we can often think of will as at least one component of what is meant. In other words, when we speak of will today, the ancient Hebrew would have spoken of heart. We basically can’t NOT sin, not because we can’t choose not to sin, but because of our fallen nature and our will’s inclination towards sin. Our choices, then naturally follow from the intentions of our will. This is often stated in theology as – non posse non peccare – or not able not to sin.

Even if we could somehow override our wills in our point by point decision making, such that we didn’t break the various moral laws, we would certainly fail on the big one – loving God with our whole selves. All the free choices in the world can’t fix a will opposed to God. We won’t love God, and therefore almost certainly, won’t make the right choices, no matter how free they may be.

In one sense, even God does not have free-will, as God can’t sin. Of course, this doesn’t mean God is not capable of carrying out a sinful action. If we can do it, God certainly can! But what we mean, is that God’s very nature, and thus will, is in opposition to sin such that God will never choose sin. As abhorrent as torturing babies for fun would seem to us (hopefully!), God can’t stomach sin, though He is capable of the actual action. So, the idea that God can’t sin really means that God won’t sin.

Even when we make the right choices, we often don’t make them for the right reasons. Much like a trained animal, we’re just carrying out behaviors based on social conditioning and tastes we’ve developed. Even if our wills are opposed to God, we still make choices which would be considered morally good at times. This is why it is false to claim, for example, that atheists can’t live in morally good ways. Of course they can. They were raised in a civilized society and are made in the image of God. Some of them make better choices than many Christians, at least on some things. The problem is, that this doesn’t get at what is really in the will. When our wills are conformed to God, we don’t just make the right choices (and hopefully more often), we make them for the right reasons.

I often hear a critique of the idea that our wills aren’t really free, being that God wouldn’t punish those who lack ability. This is a great example, as it highlights the confusion I’m talking about. If there were no free-choice, this might be true. Such a being would be essentially a robot. However, we are fully capable of making the right choices, the problem is with the driver of our choices, our will. We’re opposed to following God’s commands, which causes us to make sinful choices for which we are, justly, accountable. But those choices are freely made.

This brings to mind problematic analogies sometimes used in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. (1)Note, I don’t yet have the following books, so I’m going from what I’ve heard concerning them. They are on my reading list if I ever get time! For example, Norm Geisler uses a salvation analogy of kids drowning in a farmer’s pond in Chosen But Free. The idea being that these kids, guilty because they ignored the posted sign, recognize they are drowning, and are offered ropes, but some refuse. While this might correctly portray choice, in that they are free to grab a rope tossed to them, or to resist being rescued, it doesn’t capture the correct state of the will (the real source of the problem). Unbelievers, it seems to me, don’t recognize they are drowning, and despise the rescue rope, among other problems.

James White offers a counter example in The Potter’s Freedom, where people are burning down the King’s castle. Despite their destructive (and self-destructive efforts), the Prince rescues some of them anyway. This, in my opinion, better captures the Biblical state of our wills, yet allows for free-choice to be a reality. But, since the will drives choice, once the will is inclined towards God, it would seem that (salvific) choice would follow, as well as better moral choices and our ability to love God as we are sanctified (a process).

Another point on which this has heavy bearing is in eschatology. Will our wills be free in heaven? After thinking about this for a bit with the common usage of this term, the answer becomes clear…. I hope not! I’m hoping to have a transformed will, which is conformed to Christ’s, not a ‘free’ one. I don’t want another Fall. I expect that I’ll have free-choice, I just won’t WANT to do anything sinful, and I WILL want to love God with my whole being. That doesn’t mean I will be any less ‘free’ than I feel I currently am. But instead of a fallen-will driving my choices, I’ll have a Christ-like one, which is, after all, how I was intended to be by my Creator. If you disagree, please explain how God is going to abolish sin and evil in the hereafter with ‘free’ beings (in the free-will sense commonly used).

I recently heard a great discussion (in terms of easy to understand, the best I’ve heard), which touched on this issue on Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason podcast. “French Former Atheist Naturalist becomes Christian” (November 26, 2013 – play-time 01:32:47 through 01:44:00)

Whether you agree or disagree with my conclusions and applications, please do consider your use of the terms ‘will’ and ‘choice’ more carefully in these kinds of discussions.

Update: Wednesday, January 8, 2014

While listening to a podcast episode of Cross Examined (Jan 1, 2014 – “How Morality Proves God” 53:30 in), Frank Turek illustrated a commonly heard view I would like to critique. He said, “Everybody knows that God exists. You have to suppress the truth about it in order to say he doesn’t. But not everybody trusts in him. Why? Because God gives you the free will to go your own way. He will not force you into heaven against your will. If you don’t want God now, you’re not going to want Him in eternity.” I think C.S. Lewis popularized this view, saying God is a gentleman. He doesn’t force people to believe or not believe. I suppose I would agree, as far as it goes.

But, I think this example illustrates just such a confusion over will and choice. If you are in the fallen state, your will is hostile towards God. As Frank said, if you don’t want God, you won’t want God in eternity either. Given the free choice, man will “go their own way” straight to hell… EVERY time, shaking their fist at God the whole way!

Now, if God intervenes, our will is changed, as the hostility is removed. But we’re also given God’s spirit and started on a path of sanctification (being conformed to the will of Christ in the process). God doesn’t have to force the person into heaven, as they, in a regenerate state, want to be in right relationship with God. They will freely choose to do so.

It seems to me to be an either/or situation. The will is fallen and hostile towards God, and the person will freely choose hell. Or, the will is regenerate, being conformed to the will of Christ. This person is going to freely choose heaven.

Update: Saturday, September 6, 2014

Greg Koukl does it again with another great discussion on this topic on his Stand to Reason radio show and podcast. Here is a link to the episode entitled, “First Day of School (September 2, 2014).” The conversation with a caller, “How do you reconcile free will and Calvinism?” goes from time 02:31:48 – 2:57:38.

First, I like how Greg corrects the importance of this issue. Like he says, that unlike things like the age of the earth, you can’t help but deal with this issue if you study Scripture. And, it forms a foundation for all kinds of critical foundations of Christianity, like soteriology, the doctrine of salvation.

Second, I like how Greg stresses that we have to deal with actual WORDS and passages used in Scripture, like: election, predestined, chosen, etc. They have to mean something, and we have to deal with that.

Third, he again discusses the types of freedom and implications. This is important to understand in the discussion. Greg says ‘free-will’ is often used as a trump-card, as in… you have all these verses, BUT ‘free-will.’ However our choices work into the equation, Scripture is quite clear our wills are not free. (cf. Martin Luther’s On the Bondage of the Will) Greg talks about our compromised-will. Do we have free-will? Yes, and it is broken.

Note, I don’t yet have the following books, so I’m going from what I’ve heard concerning them. They are on my reading list if I ever get time!

About the Author

Steve loves getting people excited about Christian apologetics (case-making); seeing the beauty and rationality of Christianity and the Christian worldview. He is a husband, father, and long-time tech geek. Steve is director/educator at TilledSoil.org and also a designer/consultant at cgWerks. He holds a MA in Theology (Interdisciplinary – Christianity, Church & Culture) from Regent College in Vancouver, B.C. Canada. You can follow Steve on Twitter @TilledSoil, connect with him/TilledSoil.org on Facebook, or catch up with him on Google+.

Social Share

Dennis Danielson

You’ve outlined a standard “compatibilist” position, Steve, so you’re consistent with Augustine and Calvin. The justice of punishing a sinner depends on whether he could avoid choosing evil, not whether he could avoid willing it: _posse, si vellit_, not _posse velle._ You also follow Augustine in hoping not to have free will (by your definition) when you arrive in a blessed state. According to him, we were created in a state of _posse peccare_ and _posse non peccare_ — capable of sinning or not. But since the Fall, we’re in a state of _non posse non peccare_ — not capable of not sinning. And once translated to glory, we enter a state of _non posse peccare_ — incapacity to sin, very much in keeping with your hoping “not to have free will” in heaven.
Classically, however, incompatibilists (like me) point to the incoherence of your compatibilist (read determinist) position when all this is applied to a real or hypothetical prelapsarian state. Milton (an incompatibilist) agrees with Augustine to the extent that he claims Adam and Eve were “sufficient to have stood though free to fall.” But he goes beyond Augustine in claiming that Adam is “both will and deed created free” (a compatibilist claims only that he is in “deed” but not in “will” created free). The problem is one of theodicy: If Adam and Eve had free choice but not free will, then your determinist chain of causation reaches back to God, and the question is: Why didn’t he create his so-called perfect creatures with wills pre-programmed *not* to sin in just the sense that postlapsarian humanity is pre-programmed *to* sin?
It’s not an easy question. But incompatibilists can argue that the will that repeatedly chooses the good becomes increasingly capable of doing so, as with a good habit, and that that exercise of the will — and a good Arminian would certainly add “by God’s grace” — can eventuate in a practical incapacity to sin even if a purely *theoretical* capacity* to sin remains. The more one approaches that ideal state (“under long obedience tried,” as Milton puts it, though one may still acknowledge prevenient grace), the more one approaches a state of godly blessedness.
Full disclosure (in case there was any doubt): I have not yet attained that state!

Hi Dennis, an honor, thanks for reading and for this excellent contribution!

Yes, what happened pre-Fall is a great question, and I guess my article is primarily concerned with theological post-Fall discussion (or even the use of will and choice in non-theological discussion). I’m glad to hear I’m in good company with Augustine and Calvin, though I probably somewhat lucked out there, as my schooling hasn’t taken me into great depth in either (though I’ve been Reformed most of my life, and have listened to great Reformed theologians, so some of it must have rubbed off!). I’m not extremely fluent with some of the technical terms (like compatibilism or incompatabilism), but I hope I have a general understanding of the concepts.

I like Augustine’s, “sufficient to have stood though free to fall” as I see Adam and Eve as not possessing the will, conformed to Christ like we hope to enjoy in eternity. So, maybe I’m missing some distinction, but if you’re not fallen (opposed to God) nor conformed to Christ (unbreakably in favor towards and in relationship with God), that’s about as free as one could be in one sense. Either way, the choices are free.

So, I’m not sure quite what to do with Adam. I’ll have to run this by more of my Reformed friends. Most talk seems to be post-fall. If the atonement was planned before the foundation of the world, then God certainly knew Adam’s choice. Whether that makes it free or not is a philosophical debate. I suppose we’re stuck with a form of soft-determinism by God knowing (as it can’t be otherwise). Maybe I’m not philosophically sophisticated enough, but that doesn’t seem like it couldn’t still be free. The Bible speaks like this about the crucifixion of Jesus. The parties involved are responsible, yet it was a sure thing to happen, planned by God. If God knowing = determinism, then the only option left to avoid this seems to be open theism (which doesn’t seem Biblical). So, even if I can’t understand it, I’d think some form of compatibilism must be the case (if I’m using the term properly). I guess we Lutherans get teased about the mystery thing, but maybe that is where this one has to stay.

Supposedly, Middle Knowledge is a solution, but I just don’t see it. If God actualizes a particular world, things are still determined in the same way they are for the Calvinist (with the downside that God is held hostage to this ‘knowledge’ that comes from free creatures he hasn’t even created yet?). I’m sure there are some other theories I’m not familiar with. Hugh Ross talks about effects of extra dimensions in ‘Beyond the Cosmos’ (http://shop.reasons.org/Beyond-the-Cosmos-p/b1001.htm). I have not read it yet, but have heard him talk about it.

As to the why, I would probably say that I don’t think it is a matter of pre-programming (at least future), as much as ‘will’ in the fullest sense. We choose to sin, because we’re opposed to God in our wills (we’re sinners). Maybe our final state of conformed to the will of Christ involves a knowledge of the effects of opposition to God as witnessed through history, such that sin is so horrific to us that we just won’t ever go there… not that we’re pre-programmed to perfection. (Sort of the opposite tact, and in addition to your good habit explanation.) So, it sounds like we agree on that possibility (though I wouldn’t claim I know that’s how it works.) Just like, as I said in the article, God theoretically has the capacity to sin, but won’t. I suppose there will be the theoretical capacity for another fall, but it just won’t happen.

I followed this link from Natasha Crain’s site. I stumbled over the same point 8 that you did. Just this past Wednesday in fact I was at a men’s ministry meeting and the teacher made the exact same point… God doesn’t want robots. What’s funny is that I go to a Church that is reformed.

Thanks for this article. Would you say that one of our problems in understanding this issue is that we mistakenly assign neutrality to ourselves?

re: Robots – Yes, the Bible seems quite clear that we’re not robots, but also about the state of our wills towards God. I’m not sure how someone can solve that without making a distinction between will and choice. I think they typically don’t, and just glaze over it.

re: neutrality – Yes, I think so. Both in the sense that we don’t often really understand the fallen state (I think most people would go with the, ‘we’re basically good’ statement today), but also within Arminianism, the concept of prevenient grace. The problem, then, as Dr. James White often points out, is whether God brings everyone to this neutral state from which to make the decision. Aside from such concepts being absent from the Bible (as far as I can tell), it would seem God is still picking some to give this semi-grace and bypassing others, or at the very least, giving some much more than others.

Lora Gorton

Thank you so much for this article and the other links to it. I wouldn’t call myself a Calvinist but us Lutherans definitely believe that our Will is In Bondage. I wonder how Frank Turek would explain this concept to a non-Christian or a person that grew up in the church and was taught this and then walked away. I’m not expert on this topic and will be thinking allot more about it. Thanks so much.

I suppose Lutherans would fall into the Calvinist camp, but Luther was in this debate a bit before Calvin, so maybe Lutheranists. 😉 But I think Calvin worked out the doctrines more in detail and into the theology of that tradition than maybe Lutherans. I’m going a bit beyond my church history knowledge here… but it seems Lutherans (at least in my upbringing) left a bit more ‘mystery’ in aspects of this discussion, or didn’t stress the outworking of the details as much.

Since Frank falls more into the Arminian camp, I think he would typically blend the two points I’m trying to separate above (i.e.: will and choice) and speak of the freedom we have to choose Christ or walk away from Him. Arminians generally talk about how love is impossible without free will, so God had to create this freedom so we could truly love Him or not. (I also think he subscribes to a concept called Molinism or ‘middle knowledge’.)

If we separate will and choice, though, I think the issue gets more clear. In our fallen state, no one is going to choose to be with God or love Him, as our will are opposed and hostile towards God. But, once our wills are put back in right relationship with God, we’ll naturally recognize Him for who He is, love Him, and long to be with Him. No strong-arming us into the Kingdom is necessary.

Thanks for pointing this out. It should be fixed. (And, I’m sorry it took so long for me to do so!)

Ian

Jesus spoke about the heart as did Solomon and David before him. Jesus says that out fo the heart proceeds evil things and He was no doubt speaking of the heart that we were given at conception, which is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked and God alone knows to what degree..

But as God promised, He gives a new heart and new spirit to all who would believe in the Son of God according to the Scriptures. The old heart for such a believer is (should have been) crucified with Christ and buried with Him in baptism.
This is why Paul can say I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.
Paul tells us that we who are so crucified and buried with Christ need to count ourselves dead to sin and alive to God.

The human mind loves to dissect everything and compartmentalize it all, But Christ Jesus simply wants us to believe like a child what is written in the Scriptures.
While we are ‘free’ to choose to examine every point of Scripture in a complex way, and read numerous books written about what people think about Scripture (and strangley enough God can use that too) Jesus said we ought to become more like children – simple faith, and depend on the work of the Holy Spirit to empower us with that simple truth of Scripture.
And this is what we can see in Peter’s first sermon. This guy did not have letters after his name, nor was he learned in ‘theology’ of the day, but he was filled with the Holy Spirit to such an extent that thousands were turned to the Lord that day. These men had been with Jesus and the religious folks could see it. Perhaps he had something we have not attained to.

Paul was trained before he was brought face to face with Jesus, but he counted all his training as dung.
Both these men were no dumb dumbs concerniing the Scriptures.
What mattered more to Paul and Peter was reality and truth in simple terms through the vibrant fellowship they had with the Father and the Son.

Theology is the study of God, and we can best do that by spending time in His word and in His presence. AS the apostles said a long time ago – We will give ourselves to the Word and to prayer. Isn’t this what we need more of, brothers?
My point here brothers is that we ought to meditate on the Scriptures and depend more on the Holy Spirit to illuminate and breathe on the minds of those we seek to help.
And we have free choice to do or not to do, and we can set our will to do that thing too, until we come into the fullness of the stature of Jesus our Lord and God..

Hi Ian, thanks for commenting and sorry for the delayed response. I agree with you overall, but have to disagree a bit with what seems like a bit of disparagement in regards to education? Remember that in Acts, Scripture commends the Bereans for their diligence in checking out what the apostles were teaching them (Acts 17).

Also, when Scripture speaks of believing like a child, I’d say to think of it more in terms of trust, not a child’s lack of learning. They trust their (good) parents because of the relationship, but I think any good parent also wants their children to learn as much as possible.

Maybe that isn’t what you were meaning, but I just wanted to comment on that. But, you’re certainly correct that we have to depend on Scripture and the Holy Spirit to even appropriately do any of the above. So, I guess among brothers (and sisters) that’s a given. But, it’s still important to keep in mind!

Ian

Steve,

yes, the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for investigating, proving the all things,
yes, a child does trust more simply, and I think that has some what to do with innocence, purity and recognition of authority, and an uncluttered heart – simplicity. and it is true that any good parent would want their little ones to learn well.
peace in Jesus

FairGo

” if you don’t want God [now], you won’t want God in eternity either”. What a spurious proposition. Who, having been granted a beatific vision, would not want heaven. What current disbeliever, given a glimpse into hell, would not choose to avoid it? The problem does not reside in the destinations, but in the maps at our disposal.

re: “Who, having been granted a beatific vision, would not want heaven.”

The sinner and fallen human heart. In our natural state, we’re enemies of God, so even if we wanted other benefits of heaven, we wouldn’t want to be in the presence of God.

re: “What current disbeliever, given a glimpse into hell, would not choose to avoid it?”

True, unbelievers would want to avoid hell. But, they aren’t going to bow the knee to God without a new heart.

re: “The problem does not reside in the destinations, but in the maps at our disposal.”

As an apologist, I think the maps are relatively clear. Atheism doesn’t work and nearly every other religion (but the ones that deny reality as we can sense it) can be ruled out. Christianity is the only worldview that holds up.

That’s just based on the evidence… but then we (believers) have the witness of the Holy Spirit, our relationship with Jesus, and Scripture to get into the details.

FairGo

Wouldn’t a sinner, albeit with a fallen heart, when granted a glimpse of Christ in his majesty, fall before him as Paul did on the way to Damascus? Though some may be ‘enemies’ of God, many simply hunger for a god unknown. What are the ‘benefits’ of heaven? Free dental care? There is only one. The eternal presence of God. When allowed to glimpse that, who wouldn’t choose it? It is simply not a credible proposition to claim when you say “we wouldn’t want to be in the presence of God” once He had permitted us to glimpse his glory.

You assert “unbelievers would want to avoid hell. But, they aren’t going to bow the knee to God”. I think most people would bow the knee to Stalin if it enabled them to avoid Siberia. Who, of their ‘free will’, would ‘chose’ hell as an eternal resting place KNOWING what it was (as opposed to speculating what it might be).

The maps can’t be as clear as you claim or else EVERYBODY would be heading in the same direction. Asserting other religions don’t work doesn’t cut it. ‘Based on the evidence’? What evidence? All you can say is that you find Catholicism more to you liking.

As for telling Almighty God upon whom he may – or may not – have mercy, what doctrine they have to subscribe to before His Holy Spirit is with them, seems to me rather presumptuous. It seems more like a grasping for the human power of a gatekeeper than an adoration of our Heavenly Father’s absolute power and love.

For among other things, the scripture says, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” And “The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

“We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” ~ C.S. Lewis